You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

We got into Hansons FG range and stopped. Rather than even try to get closer, the Lions figured it was close enough, ran 3 stupid running plays that got a total of 5 feet and then Hanson( who I love and has been great for many years), misses.

You highlighted a bunch of execution problems here, yet are blaming the coaches. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Looks like he highlighted strategic problems to me.

...

If you run three times, and gain five feet, your players failed to execute. Period. There just isn't a debate there.

If your kicker misses a kick he normally makes, he failed to execute. If Hanson executes, and he should have, the coaches' strategy would appear to be the right one.

Fans only complain about the prevent defense when the defending team loses. Many games are won utilizing a defense late in the game that prevents big plays.

Exactly. Just like when people complain about lineman. If things are going good, they dont notice, when things go bad, they're considered awful. When a lineman makes a good block it nearly always goes unnoticed, but if he makes a mistake (every lineman commits at least 3-5 mistake per game) then it's always noticed and he deserves to be beheaded. It's like this situation. If it's good, it goes unnoticed. If it goes bad, they deserve to be beheaded, but in this actual instance were arguing about, the players screwed up and now it's the fault of the coach for the players poor execution. Ridiculous._________________
"Strength is meaningless in o-line play if there is no explosive, or speed-strength, quality to the strength."
- LeCharles Bentley

We've been caught up in a debate over the firing of Jim Washburn. Many of us are happy to see the "wide-9" go. I think it just causes problems against the run and doesn't allow for flexibility in play calling.

Some are arguing that Detroit uses the same wide-9, and the same problems that are being attributed to the Philly defense aren't happening here.

1) Is that true? Does Detroit run a similar 'wide-9'?
2) If it is, then what kind of problems have you seen?
3) Does it require certain elements, such as dominant DTs?_________________

We've been caught up in a debate over the firing of Jim Washburn. Many of us are happy to see the "wide-9" go. I think it just causes problems against the run and doesn't allow for flexibility in play calling.

Some are arguing that Detroit uses the same wide-9, and the same problems that are being attributed to the Philly defense aren't happening here.

1) Is that true? Does Detroit run a similar 'wide-9'?
2) If it is, then what kind of problems have you seen?
3) Does it require certain elements, such as dominant DTs?

Yes we run a wide-9. I'm not familiar with how you guys ran yours, but we line our front 4 nearly the same every time. Occasionally the DT's will lineup a little different, but it's basically all the same. Our LB's need to be versatile, fast and need to read well. They need these traits to avoid getting blocked by lineman and because it is a spread out defense. Suh draws a double, allowing for the other DT to be single teamed. The DE's usually get a single team, but may get a TE on them as well. The LB's are usually blocked by a FB our a TE and need to be quick to the ball to avoid being blocked.

The problems are that we will let a few runs happen, and that the DL will miss the RB sometimes when pursuing the QB. Our DE's are also awfully inconsistent.

The DT's are what make the defense work. Fairley finally got the starting gig, and he and Suh have created a nearly unstoppable duo. Our DE's have been a problem for us. They aren't able to get the QB in his drop back, and that is what allows the QB to break off some big runs occasionally. Overall, the defense works pretty well, and it masks the awful secondary we have VERY well. I prefer a different defense, but if we get the right peices (another DE and a S), we could be an AMAZING defense._________________
"Strength is meaningless in o-line play if there is no explosive, or speed-strength, quality to the strength."
- LeCharles Bentley

We've been caught up in a debate over the firing of Jim Washburn. Many of us are happy to see the "wide-9" go. I think it just causes problems against the run and doesn't allow for flexibility in play calling.

Some are arguing that Detroit uses the same wide-9, and the same problems that are being attributed to the Philly defense aren't happening here.

1) Is that true? Does Detroit run a similar 'wide-9'?
2) If it is, then what kind of problems have you seen?
3) Does it require certain elements, such as dominant DTs?

1) Yes
2) Running game...especially on delayed handoffs due to instant running lanes created by wide angles to the QB. Stuff you probably have noticed already.
3) helps to have intuitive linemen.

Against good RBs the Lions have suffered. Gore, Peterson twice, Beast Mode, Foster, Forte, and even Cris Johnson had good games against the Lions this year.

However the Lions played well against McCoy. They did an ok job on Steven Jackson and the Packers.

I don't know whether I'm a fan or not. I've seen both Corey Williams and Nick Fairley have their moments against the run this year, but more often than not guys are slipping by the D-line.

We got into Hansons FG range and stopped. Rather than even try to get closer, the Lions figured it was close enough, ran 3 stupid running plays that got a total of 5 feet and then Hanson( who I love and has been great for many years), misses.

You highlighted a bunch of execution problems here, yet are blaming the coaches. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Looks like he highlighted strategic problems to me.

...

If you run three times, and gain five feet, your players failed to execute. Period. There just isn't a debate there.

If your kicker misses a kick he normally makes, he failed to execute. If Hanson executes, and he should have, the coaches' strategy would appear to be the right one.

Fans only complain about the prevent defense when the defending team loses. Many games are won utilizing a defense late in the game that prevents big plays.

I don't want to start a war or anything but I ask the following.

Isn't it the coaches responsibility to call plays and schemes that the players have a legitimate chance of executing?

If an individual is assigned a task beyond their ability is it the players fault the next time the task is assigned, or, do the coaches also deserve blame for refusing to recognize the problem?

Obviously it's a bit more complex than what I've described but I would like your take on it._________________

We got into Hansons FG range and stopped. Rather than even try to get closer, the Lions figured it was close enough, ran 3 stupid running plays that got a total of 5 feet and then Hanson( who I love and has been great for many years), misses.

You highlighted a bunch of execution problems here, yet are blaming the coaches. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Looks like he highlighted strategic problems to me.

...

If you run three times, and gain five feet, your players failed to execute. Period. There just isn't a debate there.

If your kicker misses a kick he normally makes, he failed to execute. If Hanson executes, and he should have, the coaches' strategy would appear to be the right one.

Fans only complain about the prevent defense when the defending team loses. Many games are won utilizing a defense late in the game that prevents big plays.

I don't want to start a war or anything but I ask the following.

Isn't it the coaches responsibility to call plays and schemes that the players have a legitimate chance of executing?

If an individual is assigned a task beyond their ability is it the players fault the next time the task is assigned, or, do the coaches also deserve blame for refusing to recognize the problem?

Obviously it's a bit more complex than what I've described but I would like your take on it.

You hit the nail on the head. The players were set up for failure, and that's a strategic failure on the coaches part._________________Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out

We got into Hansons FG range and stopped. Rather than even try to get closer, the Lions figured it was close enough, ran 3 stupid running plays that got a total of 5 feet and then Hanson( who I love and has been great for many years), misses.

You highlighted a bunch of execution problems here, yet are blaming the coaches. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Looks like he highlighted strategic problems to me.

...

If you run three times, and gain five feet, your players failed to execute. Period. There just isn't a debate there.

If your kicker misses a kick he normally makes, he failed to execute. If Hanson executes, and he should have, the coaches' strategy would appear to be the right one.

Fans only complain about the prevent defense when the defending team loses. Many games are won utilizing a defense late in the game that prevents big plays.

I don't want to start a war or anything but I ask the following.

Isn't it the coaches responsibility to call plays and schemes that the players have a legitimate chance of executing?

If an individual is assigned a task beyond their ability is it the players fault the next time the task is assigned, or, do the coaches also deserve blame for refusing to recognize the problem?

Obviously it's a bit more complex than what I've described but I would like your take on it.

Very reasonable questions. Absolutely doesn't have to be a war.

I'll use the above scenarios as examples: we have a team average 4.2 YPC. We averaged five feet on three runs. We should be able to execute those plays better.

Hanson routinely makes kicks from that distance.

If it's an unreasonable scenario, then I agree: it's on the coaches. I don't feel that many of those were unreasonable. Players have to execute._________________Team Stylish

We got into Hansons FG range and stopped. Rather than even try to get closer, the Lions figured it was close enough, ran 3 stupid running plays that got a total of 5 feet and then Hanson( who I love and has been great for many years), misses.

You highlighted a bunch of execution problems here, yet are blaming the coaches. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Looks like he highlighted strategic problems to me.

...

If you run three times, and gain five feet, your players failed to execute. Period. There just isn't a debate there.

If your kicker misses a kick he normally makes, he failed to execute. If Hanson executes, and he should have, the coaches' strategy would appear to be the right one.

Fans only complain about the prevent defense when the defending team loses. Many games are won utilizing a defense late in the game that prevents big plays.

I don't want to start a war or anything but I ask the following.

Isn't it the coaches responsibility to call plays and schemes that the players have a legitimate chance of executing?

If an individual is assigned a task beyond their ability is it the players fault the next time the task is assigned, or, do the coaches also deserve blame for refusing to recognize the problem?

Obviously it's a bit more complex than what I've described but I would like your take on it.

Very reasonable questions. Absolutely doesn't have to be a war.

I'll use the above scenarios as examples: we have a team average 4.2 YPC. We averaged five feet on three runs. We should be able to execute those plays better.

Hanson routinely makes kicks from that distance.

If it's an unreasonable scenario, then I agree: it's on the coaches. I don't feel that many of those were unreasonable. Players have to execute.

Fair enough.

I would follow up by asking how your view would be altered, if at all by looking at the specific game stats. As an example LeShoure was averaging 2.7 YPC Sunday which is below the teams average.

So if facing an opponent that defends the run better shouldn't the coaches take this into consideration?

On the Hanson issue I don't agree with Schwartz's position but I understand the rational of making the decision and 9 out of 10 times Hanson makes that kick.

I had a laugh earlier because if I remember correctly ( at my age that isn't a guarantee) you and I had opposite positions on Belichecks gamble a few years back against the Colts. BB went for the gamble, turned it over on downs and Manning drove down the field to score. You felt based on defensive performance BB made the right call and I thought he was nuts _________________

I would follow up by asking how your view would be altered, if at all by looking at the specific game stats. As an example LeShoure was averaging 2.7 YPC Sunday which is below the teams average.

So if facing an opponent that defends the run better shouldn't the coaches take this into consideration?

On the Hanson issue I don't agree with Schwartz's position but I understand the rational of making the decision and 9 out of 10 times Hanson makes that kick.

I had a laugh earlier because if I remember correctly ( at my age that isn't a guarantee) you and I had opposite positions on Belichecks gamble a few years back against the Colts. BB went for the gamble, turned it over on downs and Manning drove down the field to score. You felt based on defensive performance BB made the right call and I thought he was nuts

Coaches should absolutely take an opponent's strengths into consideration, but it doesn't mean (and you didn't say) that they should abandon that aspect of the game. If we line up to run, it isn't unreasonable to assume we'll gain at least two yards. So, if we run on 3rd and inches, I wont blame the coaches if the run fails, regardless of the defense.

To your point about Hanson: that is the right line of thinking. You can disagree with a decision without blaming the coaches for making a "bad call". Choosing to kick it there is a fine call, but you may have preferred a different strategy. It seems as if some feel that, if the call doesn't work, the coaches failed. I don't agree.

And I really can't remember my stance on the BB call._________________Team Stylish